On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:53:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote:
>
> > > have been the source of the confusion. Remove the noop initialization
> > > accordingly.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarca...@redhat.com>
> >
> > Yeah, looks good to me. I've folded it into my pile of changes touching
> > this and
> > there are no visible issues. [...]
>
> Logistics question: is this fix coming upstream-wards via your pile of
> changes
> anytime soon?
Actually I was thinking Andrea would send it since it is his fix. And
besides, my pile is still stinking. :-)
AFAICT, the patch fixes a noop so the current code works anyway - IOW,
it is basically a code correctness fix which doesn't have any other
effect. What I mean by that is, no need to go in now for 3.9 and stable.
Long story, short: best it would be, IMO, if Andrea would send it to
you soonish but you apply it for 3.10 so that it sees a whole cycle of
testing just in case - it is CPA code after all.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
